Alternating decision tree

An alternating decision tree (ADTree) is a machine learning method for classification. It generalizes decision trees and has connections to boosting. An ADTree consists of an alternation of decision nodes, which specify a predicate condition, and prediction nodes, which contain a single number. An instance is classified by an ADTree by following all paths for which all decision nodes are true, and summing any prediction nodes that are traversed. == History == ADTrees were introduced by Yoav Freund and Llew Mason. However, the algorithm as presented had several typographical errors. Clarifications and optimizations were later presented by Bernhard Pfahringer, Geoffrey Holmes and Richard Kirkby. Implementations are available in Weka and JBoost. == Motivation == Original boosting algorithms typically used either decision stumps or decision trees as weak hypotheses. As an example, boosting decision stumps creates a set of T {\displaystyle T} weighted decision stumps (where T {\displaystyle T} is the number of boosting iterations), which then vote on the final classification according to their weights. Individual decision stumps are weighted according to their ability to classify the data. Boosting a simple learner results in an unstructured set of T {\displaystyle T} hypotheses, making it difficult to infer correlations between attributes. Alternating decision trees introduce structure to the set of hypotheses by requiring that they build off a hypothesis that was produced in an earlier iteration. The resulting set of hypotheses can be visualized in a tree based on the relationship between a hypothesis and its "parent." Another important feature of boosted algorithms is that the data is given a different distribution at each iteration. Instances that are misclassified are given a larger weight while accurately classified instances are given reduced weight. == Alternating decision tree structure == An alternating decision tree consists of decision nodes and prediction nodes. Decision nodes specify a predicate condition. Prediction nodes contain a single number. ADTrees always have prediction nodes as both root and leaves. An instance is classified by an ADTree by following all paths for which all decision nodes are true and summing any prediction nodes that are traversed. This is different from binary classification trees such as CART (Classification and regression tree) or C4.5 in which an instance follows only one path through the tree. === Example === The following tree was constructed using JBoost on the spambase dataset (available from the UCI Machine Learning Repository). In this example, spam is coded as 1 and regular email is coded as −1. The following table contains part of the information for a single instance. The instance is scored by summing all of the prediction nodes through which it passes. In the case of the instance above, the score is calculated as The final score of 0.657 is positive, so the instance is classified as spam. The magnitude of the value is a measure of confidence in the prediction. The original authors list three potential levels of interpretation for the set of attributes identified by an ADTree: Individual nodes can be evaluated for their own predictive ability. Sets of nodes on the same path may be interpreted as having a joint effect The tree can be interpreted as a whole. Care must be taken when interpreting individual nodes as the scores reflect a re weighting of the data in each iteration. == Description of the algorithm == The inputs to the alternating decision tree algorithm are: A set of inputs ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x m , y m ) {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{m},y_{m})} where x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} is a vector of attributes and y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} is either -1 or 1. Inputs are also called instances. A set of weights w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} corresponding to each instance. The fundamental element of the ADTree algorithm is the rule. A single rule consists of a precondition, a condition, and two scores. A condition is a predicate of the form "attribute value." A precondition is simply a logical conjunction of conditions. Evaluation of a rule involves a pair of nested if statements: 1 if (precondition) 2 if (condition) 3 return score_one 4 else 5 return score_two 6 end if 7 else 8 return 0 9 end if Several auxiliary functions are also required by the algorithm: W + ( c ) {\displaystyle W_{+}(c)} returns the sum of the weights of all positively labeled examples that satisfy predicate c {\displaystyle c} W − ( c ) {\displaystyle W_{-}(c)} returns the sum of the weights of all negatively labeled examples that satisfy predicate c {\displaystyle c} W ( c ) = W + ( c ) + W − ( c ) {\displaystyle W(c)=W_{+}(c)+W_{-}(c)} returns the sum of the weights of all examples that satisfy predicate c {\displaystyle c} The algorithm is as follows: 1 function ad_tree 2 input Set of m training instances 3 4 wi = 1/m for all i 5 a = 1 2 ln W + ( t r u e ) W − ( t r u e ) {\displaystyle a={\frac {1}{2}}{\textrm {ln}}{\frac {W_{+}(true)}{W_{-}(true)}}} 6 R0 = a rule with scores a and 0, precondition "true" and condition "true." 7 P = { t r u e } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}=\{true\}} 8 C = {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}=} the set of all possible conditions 9 for j = 1 … T {\displaystyle j=1\dots T} 10 p ∈ P , c ∈ C {\displaystyle p\in {\mathcal {P}},c\in {\mathcal {C}}} get values that minimize z = 2 ( W + ( p ∧ c ) W − ( p ∧ c ) + W + ( p ∧ ¬ c ) W − ( p ∧ ¬ c ) ) + W ( ¬ p ) {\displaystyle z=2\left({\sqrt {W_{+}(p\wedge c)W_{-}(p\wedge c)}}+{\sqrt {W_{+}(p\wedge \neg c)W_{-}(p\wedge \neg c)}}\right)+W(\neg p)} 11 P + = p ∧ c + p ∧ ¬ c {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}+=p\wedge c+p\wedge \neg c} 12 a 1 = 1 2 ln W + ( p ∧ c ) + 1 W − ( p ∧ c ) + 1 {\displaystyle a_{1}={\frac {1}{2}}{\textrm {ln}}{\frac {W_{+}(p\wedge c)+1}{W_{-}(p\wedge c)+1}}} 13 a 2 = 1 2 ln W + ( p ∧ ¬ c ) + 1 W − ( p ∧ ¬ c ) + 1 {\displaystyle a_{2}={\frac {1}{2}}{\textrm {ln}}{\frac {W_{+}(p\wedge \neg c)+1}{W_{-}(p\wedge \neg c)+1}}} 14 Rj = new rule with precondition p, condition c, and weights a1 and a2 15 w i = w i e − y i R j ( x i ) {\displaystyle w_{i}=w_{i}e^{-y_{i}R_{j}(x_{i})}} 16 end for 17 return set of Rj The set P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} grows by two preconditions in each iteration, and it is possible to derive the tree structure of a set of rules by making note of the precondition that is used in each successive rule. == Empirical results == Figure 6 in the original paper demonstrates that ADTrees are typically as robust as boosted decision trees and boosted decision stumps. Typically, equivalent accuracy can be achieved with a much simpler tree structure than recursive partitioning algorithms.

Sentence embedding

In natural language processing, a sentence embedding is a representation of a sentence as a vector of numbers which encodes meaningful semantic information. State of the art embeddings are based on the learned hidden layer representation of dedicated sentence transformer models. BERT pioneered an approach involving the use of a dedicated [CLS] token prepended to the beginning of each sentence inputted into the model; the final hidden state vector of this token encodes information about the sentence and can be fine-tuned for use in sentence classification tasks. In practice however, BERT's sentence embedding with the [CLS] token achieves poor performance, often worse than simply averaging non-contextual word embeddings. SBERT later achieved superior sentence embedding performance by fine tuning BERT's [CLS] token embeddings through the usage of a siamese neural network architecture on the SNLI dataset. Other approaches are loosely based on the idea of distributional semantics applied to sentences. Skip-Thought trains an encoder-decoder structure for the task of neighboring sentences predictions; this has been shown to achieve worse performance than approaches such as InferSent or SBERT. An alternative direction is to aggregate word embeddings, such as those returned by Word2vec, into sentence embeddings. The most straightforward approach is to simply compute the average of word vectors, known as continuous bag-of-words (CBOW). However, more elaborate solutions based on word vector quantization have also been proposed. One such approach is the vector of locally aggregated word embeddings (VLAWE), which demonstrated performance improvements in downstream text classification tasks. == Applications == In recent years, sentence embedding has seen a growing level of interest due to its applications in natural language queryable knowledge bases through the usage of vector indexing for semantic search. LangChain for instance utilizes sentence transformers for purposes of indexing documents. In particular, an indexing is generated by generating embeddings for chunks of documents and storing (document chunk, embedding) tuples. Then given a query in natural language, the embedding for the query can be generated. A top k similarity search algorithm is then used between the query embedding and the document chunk embeddings to retrieve the most relevant document chunks as context information for question answering tasks. This approach is also known formally as retrieval-augmented generation. Though not as predominant as BERTScore, sentence embeddings are commonly used for sentence similarity evaluation which sees common use for the task of optimizing a Large language model's generation parameters is often performed via comparing candidate sentences against reference sentences. By using the cosine-similarity of the sentence embeddings of candidate and reference sentences as the evaluation function, a grid-search algorithm can be utilized to automate hyperparameter optimization. == Evaluation == A way of testing sentence encodings is to apply them on Sentences Involving Compositional Knowledge (SICK) corpus for both entailment (SICK-E) and relatedness (SICK-R). In the best results are obtained using a BiLSTM network trained on the Stanford Natural Language Inference (SNLI) Corpus. The Pearson correlation coefficient for SICK-R is 0.885 and the result for SICK-E is 86.3. A slight improvement over previous scores is presented in: SICK-R: 0.888 and SICK-E: 87.8 using a concatenation of bidirectional Gated recurrent unit.

Privacy Lost

Privacy Lost is a 2023 short science fiction film directed by Peter Stoel and Robert Berger. It follows a family using augmented reality (AR) and artificial intelligence (AI) devices capable of reading emotional states, raising questions about privacy and manipulation. == Premise == Privacy Lost follows a family using AR glasses that capture and interpret emotions in real time. As the parents argue in a restaurant, their emotional states and even hidden feelings become visible through these glasses. An AI-driven waiter adapts its appearance for each family member, employing emotional data to influence their decisions. == Cast == Brian Kant as Waiter Michael Krass as Husband Estelle Levinson as Waitress Thor van der Linden as Scotty Carlijn van Ramshorst as Wife == Production == Filming took place at HeadQ Productions, a virtual studio located in Amsterdam. The creators sought to depict a near-future scenario in which real-time emotion analysis becomes part of daily interactions. The film was screened at the Augmented World Expo (AWE), where it was noted for its thematic focus on AI-driven manipulation and emotional tracking. The depiction of AR glasses and AI characters integrates modern visual effects to show how devices might analyze emotional responses in real time. It also depicts how AI-driven interactions could influence consumer decisions, pointing to concerns over potential misuse. == Themes == Privacy Lost focuses on the intersection of advanced AI capabilities and AR environments, showing how real-time emotional analysis can be leveraged for targeted persuasion. The film aims to highlight the social and ethical implications of emerging AR and AI technologies, underlining how establishing clear regulatory frameworks for them is necessary to protect individual privacy, govern the storage of emotion-based data, and prevent manipulative practices. Critics describe the film’s theme as dystopian and note that such a reality is unlikely to occur in the near future. However, despite the exaggerated scenario, the film emphasizes the importance of a responsible approach by developers toward emerging technologies.

Computing Machinery and Intelligence

"Computing Machinery and Intelligence" is a paper written by Alan Turing on the topic of artificial intelligence. The paper, published in 1950 in Mind, was the first to introduce his concept of what is now known as the Turing test to the general public. Turing's paper considers the question "Can machines think?" Turing says that since the words "think" and "machine" cannot clearly be defined, we should "replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words." To achieve this objective, Turing proposes a three-step approach. First, he identifies a simple and unambiguous concept to substitute for the term "think." Second, he delineates the specific "machines" under consideration. Third, armed with these tools, he poses a new question related to the first, which he believes he can answer in the affirmative. == Turing's test == Rather than trying to determine if a machine is thinking, Turing suggests we should ask if the machine can win a game, called the "Imitation Game". The original Imitation game, that Turing described, is a simple party game involving three players. Player A is a man, player B is a woman and player C (who plays the role of the interrogator) can be of either sex. In the Imitation Game, player C is unable to see either player A or player B (and knows them only as X and Y), and can communicate with them only through written notes or any other form that does not give away any details about their gender. By asking questions of player A and player B, player C tries to determine which of the two is the man and which is the woman. Player A's role is to trick the interrogator into making the wrong decision, while player B attempts to assist the interrogator in making the right one. Turing proposes a variation of this game that involves the computer: We now ask the question, "What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?" Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman? These questions replace our original, "Can machines think?" So the modified game becomes one that involves three participants in isolated rooms: a computer (which is being tested), a human, and a (human) judge. The human judge can converse with both the human and the computer by typing into a terminal. Both the computer and the human try to convince the judge that they are the human. If the judge cannot consistently tell which is which, then the computer wins the game. Researchers in the United Kingdom had been exploring "machine intelligence" for up to ten years prior to the founding of the field of artificial intelligence (AI) research in 1956. It was a common topic among the members of the Ratio Club, an informal group of British cybernetics and electronics researchers that included Alan Turing. Turing, in particular, had been running the notion of machine intelligence since at least 1941 and one of the earliest-known mentions of "computer intelligence" was made by him in 1947. As Stevan Harnad notes, the question has become "Can machines do what we (as thinking entities) can do?" In other words, Turing is no longer asking whether a machine can "think"; he is asking whether a machine can act indistinguishably from the way a thinker acts. This question avoids the difficult philosophical problem of pre-defining the verb "to think" and focuses instead on the performance capacities that being able to think makes possible, and how a causal system can generate them. Since Turing introduced his test, it has been both highly influential and widely criticised, and has become an important concept in the philosophy of artificial intelligence. Some of its criticisms, such as John Searle's Chinese room, are themselves controversial. Some have taken Turing's question to have been "Can a computer, communicating over a teleprinter, fool a person into believing it is human?" but it seems clear that Turing was not talking about fooling people but about generating human cognitive capacity. == Digital machines == Turing also notes that we need to determine which "machines" we wish to consider. He points out that a human clone, while man-made, would not provide a very interesting example. Turing suggested that we should focus on the capabilities of digital machinery—machines which manipulate the binary digits of 1 and 0, rewriting them into memory using simple rules. He gave two reasons. First, there is no reason to speculate whether or not they can exist. They already did in 1950. Second, digital machinery is "universal". Turing's research into the foundations of computation had proved that a digital computer can, in theory, simulate the behaviour of any other digital machine, given enough memory and time. (This is the essential insight of the Church–Turing thesis and the universal Turing machine.) Therefore, if any digital machine can "act like it is thinking", then every sufficiently powerful digital machine can. Turing writes, "all digital computers are in a sense equivalent." This allows the original question to be made even more specific. Turing now restates the original question as "Let us fix our attention on one particular digital computer C. Is it true that by modifying this computer to have an adequate storage, suitably increasing its speed of action, and providing it with an appropriate programme, C can be made to play satisfactorily the part of A in the imitation game, the part of B being taken by a man?" Hence, Turing states that the focus is not on "whether all digital computers would do well in the game nor whether the computers that are presently available would do well, but whether there are imaginable computers which would do well". What is more important is to consider the advancements possible in the state of our machines today regardless of whether we have the available resource to create one or not. == Nine common objections == Having clarified the question, Turing turned to answering it: he considered the following nine common objections, which include all the major arguments against artificial intelligence raised in the years since his paper was first published. Religious Objection: This states that thinking is a function of man's immortal soul; therefore, a machine cannot think. "In attempting to construct such machines," wrote Turing, "we should not be irreverently usurping His power of creating souls, any more than we are in the procreation of children: rather we are, in either case, instruments of His will providing mansions for the souls that He creates." 'Heads in the Sand' Objection: "The consequences of machines thinking would be too dreadful. Let us hope and believe that they cannot do so." This thinking is popular among intellectual people, as they believe superiority derives from higher intelligence and the possibility of being overtaken is a threat (as machines have efficient memory capacities and processing speed, machines exceeding the learning and knowledge capabilities are highly probable). This objection is a fallacious appeal to consequences, confusing what should not be with what can or cannot be (Wardrip-Fruin, 56). The Mathematical Objection: This objection uses mathematical theorems, such as Gödel's incompleteness theorem, to show that there are limits to what questions a computer system based on logic can answer. Turing suggests that humans are too often wrong themselves and pleased at the fallibility of a machine. (This argument would be made again by philosopher John Lucas in 1961 and physicist Roger Penrose in 1989, and later would be called Penrose–Lucas argument.) Argument From Consciousness: This argument, suggested by Professor Geoffrey Jefferson in his 1949 Lister Oration (acceptance speech for his 1948 award of Lister Medal) states that "not until a machine can write a sonnet or compose a concerto because of thoughts and emotions felt, and not by the chance fall of symbols, could we agree that machine equals brain." Turing replies by saying that we have no way of knowing that any individual other than ourselves experiences emotions, and that therefore we should accept the test. He adds, "I do not wish to give the impression that I think there is no mystery about consciousness ... [b]ut I do not think these mysteries necessarily need to be solved before we can answer the question [of whether machines can think]." (This argument, that a computer can't have conscious experiences or understanding, would be made in 1980 by philosopher John Searle in his Chinese room argument. Turing's reply is now known as the "other minds reply". See also Can a machine have a mind? in the philosophy of AI.) Arguments from various disabilities. These arguments all have the form "a computer will never do X". Turing offers a selection:Be kind, resourceful, beautiful, friendly, have initiative, have a sense of humour, tell right from wrong, make mistakes, fall in love, enjo

Sora (text-to-video model)

Sora was a text-to-video model and social media app developed by OpenAI. Using artificial intelligence, the model generated short video clips based on prompts, and could also extend existing short videos. In February 2024, OpenAI previewed examples of its output to the public, with the first generation of Sora released publicly for ChatGPT Plus and ChatGPT Pro users in the United States and Canada in December 2024. The second generation of Sora was released to select users in the US and Canada at the end of September 2025. Sora 2 integrated social media features into the app. The app was shut down on April 26, 2026 and the application programming interface (API) is planned to be discontinued on September 24, 2026, marking the end of the Sora AI brand as a whole. By default, the generator used copyrighted material in its videos, unless copyright holders actively opt out of having their content included. Videos contained a visible, moving digital watermark to prevent misuse, but a week after Sora 2's release, third-party programs became available which could remove the watermark. == Background == Several other models capable of generating video from text had been created prior to Sora, including Meta's Make‑A‑Video, Runway's Gen‑2 and Google Veo. OpenAI, the company behind Sora, had released DALL·E 3, the third of its DALL-E text-to-image models, in September 2023. == History == === Initial release === The team that developed Sora named it after the Japanese word for 'sky' to signify its "limitless creative potential". On February 15, 2024, OpenAI first previewed Sora by releasing multiple clips of high-definition videos that it had created, including an SUV driving down a mountain road, an animation of a "short fluffy monster" next to a candle, two people walking through Tokyo in the snow, and fake historical footage of the California gold rush. OpenAI stated that it was able to generate videos as long as one minute. The company then shared a technical report that highlighted the methods used to train the model. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman also posted a series of tweets responding to Twitter users' prompts with Sora-generated videos of the prompts. As of December 9, 2024, OpenAI had gradually made Sora available to the public for ChatGPT Pro and ChatGPT Plus users in the U.S. and Canada. Prior to this, the company had provided limited access to a small "red team", including experts in misinformation and bias, to perform adversarial testing on the model. The company also shared Sora with a small group of creative professionals, including video makers and artists, to seek feedback on its usefulness in creative fields. In February 2025, OpenAI announced plans to integrate Sora into ChatGPT by letting users generate Sora videos from the chatbot. === Sora 2 === Sora 2 was unveiled on September 30, 2025, with an iOS app at the same time, as well as an Android app two months later. All videos generated by the model feature a visible, moving watermark to prevent misuse of the tool. The previous version of Sora also added a safety watermark to allow viewers to distinguish between real and fictional content. On October 7, 404 Media reported that third-party programs that could remove the watermark from Sora 2 videos had become prevalent. Many outlets, such as Wired magazine, have noted that the Sora 2 app is overtly similar to TikTok in style and features. === Discontinuation === On March 24, 2026, OpenAI announced on X that it was discontinuing Sora in both the mobile app and the API. The Sora app was shut down on April 26, 2026, while the API is planned to be shut down on September 24, 2026. OpenAI's partnership with Disney, which included a licensing agreement allowing Disney characters to be used within Sora, was also coming to an end. The decision prompted British technology news website The Register to label OpenAI a "product-killer", following in the footsteps of other technology companies such as Google, Amazon Web Services, Broadcom, Cloud Software Group, and Netscape. OpenAI did not provide a specific reason for discontinuing Sora in its shutdown notice. The reports that emerged regarding this discontinuity linked the decision to computation shortages, cost pressures, and a broader shift toward core enterprise products. Following its public launch, Sora's worldwide users peaked at around a million before declining to fewer than 500,000, while the service cost an estimated $1 million per day to operate due to the computational demands of video generation. == Legal regulation == In November 2024, an API key for Sora access was leaked by a group of testers on Hugging Face who posted a manifesto stating that they were protesting that Sora was used for "art washing". OpenAI revoked all access three hours after the leak was made public and stated that "hundreds of artists" have shaped the development and that "participation is voluntary". At the time of its launch, Sora 2 allowed copyrighted content by default unless copyright holders contacted OpenAI to restrict the generation of their content on the platform. On October 3, 2025, OpenAI stated that a future update to Sora 2 would give copyright holders "more granular control" over the generation of copyrighted content, but the company did not state whether existing content would be removed. On October 6, the chairman of the MPA criticized OpenAI's approach to copyright with Sora 2. On December 11, 2025, the Walt Disney Company announced that it would invest $1 billion in OpenAI to allow users to generate more than 200 of its copyrighted characters on Sora 2. These characters include those from Disney Animation, Pixar, Marvel Studios, and Star Wars. == Capabilities and limitations == The technology behind Sora is an adaptation of the technology behind DALL-E 3. According to OpenAI, Sora is a diffusion transformer, a denoising latent diffusion model with one transformer as its denoiser. A video is generated in latent space by denoising 3D "patches", then transformed to standard space by a video decompressor. Recaptioning is employed to augment training data by using a video-to-text model to create detailed captions for videos. OpenAI trained the model using publicly available videos as well as copyrighted videos licensed for the purpose, but did not reveal the number or the exact source of the videos. Upon its release, OpenAI acknowledged some of Sora's shortcomings, including its limited capacity to simulate complex physics, to understand causality and to differentiate left from right. OpenAI also stated that, in adherence to the company's existing safety practices, Sora will restrict text prompts for sexual, violent, hateful or celebrity imagery, as well as content featuring existing intellectual property. Sora researcher Tim Brooks stated that the model learned how to create 3D graphics from its dataset alone, while fellow Sora researcher Bill Peebles said that the model automatically created different video angles without being prompted. According to OpenAI, Sora-generated videos are also tagged with C2PA metadata to indicate that they are AI-processed. === Comparison with other models === The Artificial Analysis have placed Sora 2 pro lower than other text-to-video AI generators in the market on its leaderboard. Other models, such as Seedance 2.0 from ByteDance, Runaway 4.5 from Runaway, and Kling 3.0 from KlingAI, have ranked higher than Sora 2.0. == Reception == === Positive === In 2024, Will Douglas Heaven of the MIT Technology Review called the demonstration videos "impressive", but noted that they must have been cherry-picked and may not be representative of Sora's typical output. Lisa Lacy of CNET called its example videos "remarkably realistic – except perhaps when a human face appears close up or when sea creatures are swimming". In October 2025, The New York Times remarked that the release of the Sora 2 app in September 2025 was "jaw-dropping (for better and worse)" though also remarked that the app was a "social network in disguise" and "the type of product that companies like Meta and X have sought to build: a way to bring A.I. to the masses that people can share." The article expressed concern regarding the product's potential impact on society and its potential use to promote misinformation, disinformation, and scams. A 2025 study in Science Advances found that generative AI tools can lower barriers to entry in creative work. It enables users with diverse skill sets, including people with less formal artistic training and technical skills, to act on their creative and imaginative ideas. The lower barrier to entry allows such users previously locked out of the creative industry to produce content and easily act on their creative ideas. === Negative === Some internet users and online content creators, such as Hank Green, called the mobile app "SlopTok," a reference to both the mobile app TikTok and the term AI slop. Filmmaker Tyler Perry announced he would be putting a planned

ALL-IN-1

ALL-IN-1 was an office automation product developed and sold by Digital Equipment Corporation in the 1980s. It was one of the first purchasable off the shelf electronic mail products. It was later known as Office Server V3.2 for OpenVMS Alpha and OpenVMS VAX systems before being discontinued. == Overview == ALL-IN-1 was advertised as an office automation system including functionality in Electronic Messaging, Word Processing and Time Management. It offered an application development platform and customization capabilities that ranged from scripting to code-level integration. ALL-IN-1 was designed and developed by Skip Walter, John Churin and Marty Skinner from Digital Equipment Corporation who began work in 1977. Sheila Chance was hired as the software engineering manager in 1981. The first version of the software, called CP/OSS, the Charlotte Package of Office System Services, named after the location of the developers, was released in May 1982. In 1983, the product was renamed ALL-IN-1 and the Charlotte group continued to develop versions 1.1 through 1.3. Digital then made the decision to move most of the development activity to its central engineering facility in Reading, United Kingdom, where a group there took responsibility for the product from version 2.0 (released in field test in 1984 and to customers in 1985) onward. The Charlotte group continued to work on the Time Management subsystem until version 2.3 and other contributions were made from groups based in Sophia Antipolis, France (System for Customization Management and the integration with VAX Notes), Reading (Message Router and MAILbus), and Nashua, New Hampshire (FMS). ALL-IN-1 V3.0 introduced shared file cabinets and the File Cabinet Server (FCS) to lay the foundation for an eventual integration with TeamLinks, Digital's PC office client. Previous integrations with PCs included PC ALL-IN-1, a DOS-based product introduced in 1989 that never proved popular with customers. Bob Wyman was the first product manager. He oversaw the growth of the product culminating in over $2 billion per year in revenue and market leadership in the proprietary office automation sector. Other consultants from Digital Equipment Corporation involved include Frank Nicodem, Donald Vickers and Tony Redmond.

Kialo

Kialo is an online structured debate platform with argument maps in the form of debate trees. It is a collaborative reasoning tool for thoughtful discussion, understanding different points of view, and collaborative decision-making, showing arguments for and against claims underneath user-submitted theses or questions. The deliberative discourse platform is designed to present hundreds of supporting or opposing arguments in a dynamic argument tree and is streamlined for rational civil debate on topics such as philosophical questions, policy deliberations, entertainment, ethics, science questions, and unsolved problems or subjects of disagreement in general. Argument-boxes are structured into hierarchical branches where the root is the main thesis (or theses) of the debate, enabling deliberation and navigable debates between opposing perspectives. A debate is divided into Pro (supporting) and Con (refuting or devaluing) columns where registered users can add arguments and rate the impact on the weight or validity of the parent claim. The arguments are sorted according to the rating average. Its argument tree structure enables detailed scrutiny of claims at all levels of the tree and allows users to for example quickly understand why a decision was made or which of the aggregated arguments swayed it this way. Newcomers can join a debate at any time and look back at the structured discussion history, and then weigh in at the right place with their new argument or their comment on a specific argument. The design presets a structure on debates "that allows participants to easily see, process, and ultimately assess the many facets of competing claims". The word Kialo is Esperanto for "reason". The platform is the world's largest argument mapping and structured debate site. == Overview == Users can comment on every Pro or Con, for example for requesting sources or expansions. Recent activities of a debate are shown in a panel on the right side of the respective debate. Debates can be found through the search or on the Explore page through their descriptions and topic-tags. Mere comments that do not make a constructive point (a self-contained argument backed by reasoning) are not allowed and are picked up by other users and moderators. "Civil language and sensible observations from opposing perspectives" can be seen also in debates about controversial topics. The site by-design incentivizes fair, rigorous, open-minded dialogue. Contributors making claims often also write counterpoints to their own contribution. Claims need to be shorter than 500 characters and can link to external sources. Debate trees can also start off with multiple theses – such as different policy options or hypotheses. Claims can link to related debates or include segments of them. In the discussion tab of each claim, users can make edit proposals (e.g. for accuracy, improving sources, or changing scope), decide if the argument should be moved or copied to another branch, call for archiving a claim, and ask for extra evidence or clarification. Debates can grow large and complex for which a sunburst diagram visualization of the topology of the debate and the search functionality can be useful. Each debate also has a chat-box. In cases where e.g. a "Con" is a point against multiple in the "Pros", users – through moderators – can link these arguments at the respective places to avoid duplication of content and allowing a clean chain for people to understand which points are arguments against each other. Contributions of users are tracked, enabling a board of thought-leaders for every debate. Other gamification elements include a feature to thank users for their contributions. The "Perspectives" feature allows users to see 'Impact' ratings of supporters and opposers of a thesis as well as of the debate's moderators and individual contributors. It thereby enables participants to see a debate from other participants' perspectives and to sort by them. In Kialo Edu, this feature lets teachers view votes for a whole class, individuals, or supporters/opponents of a specific thesis. Users in both versions of Kialo can vote on the overall debate topic as well as on individual claims to express their perspectives or conclusions, with the rationale (i.e. the main causal arguments) why they voted on the veracity of the thesis as they did not being captured. Voting can be done by any registered user while navigating through any debate that has voting enabled or via using the Guided Voting wizard user interface that automatically walks through branches. As of 2021, Kialo doesn't have a mobile app. == Contents == A 2018 report stated the collaborative argument platform hosts more than 10,000 debates in various languages. It also hosts private debates. The website claims that it has over 18,000 public debates as of July 2023, as well as over 1 million votes and over 720,000 claims. Debates can be found via the site's internal search and up to six tags per debate. Preprint studies have scraped public debates on over 1.4K issues with over 130K statements as of October 2019 and 1628 debates, related to over 1120 categories, with 124,312 unique claims as of June 26, 2020. == Kialo Inc. == The site is run by Kialo Inc. It was founded by German-born entrepreneur and London School of Economics and Political Science graduate Errikos Pitsos in August 2017 and is based in Brooklyn and Berlin. According to a 2018 report, the site does not show advertisements and does not sell user's data. The for-profit company was founded in 2011, Pitsos began to develop the concept in 2012 and described various specifics of the system in 2014. In 2018, he stated that they intend to make money by selling the platform to companies as a deliberation and decision-making tool. The site is free to use for the public and in education. According to the site, as of 2023 Kialo.com is a non-revenue generating site with no ads and no reselling of user data. == Applications and adoption == === Adopted applications === Applications of its content or the platform in society include: Teachers and professors, especially in high schools – including the universities Harvard and Princeton, are using Kialo for class discussions and exercises in critical thinking and reasoning, as consolidating understanding of materials covered in recent classes, more useful and engaging learning experiences, for remote/e-learning, for clearing up misconceptions, teaching logical fallacies and rational argumentation, for academic dialogue, teaching media literacy, and for teaching to sufficiently reflect or research before posting online. Like for debaters of the main site, access for schools and universities is free. Kialo Edu is the custom version of Kialo specifically designed for classroom use where debates are private and locked to invited students. Kialo allows teachers to provide feedback to students on their ideas, argument structure, and research quality while it is left to other students to rate the impacts of their peers' arguments. Students can be allowed to contribute anonymously which may be useful for controversial issues as well as for safeguarding privacy in education. Students are or can be encouraged to back up their claims with evidence which can foster digital literacy and research skills. Students and teachers can use it to arrange their thoughts when structuring an essay or project. The site's name was decided on internally using the software. === Prototypical and theoretical applications === Potential, theoretical, prototypical or little-used applications include: Education Improving critical thinking skills of society at large as well as facilitating deep or efficient thinking and deepening research and debates where e.g. discussions are less shallow and the well-known or many arguments have already been made and in many cases aren't unreasonably over- or underrated. Pitsos claimed that "we're training students to be very good test-takers instead of critical thinkers", suggesting teaching people to think things through may be more important or neglected compared to essay writing skills. Many young people and adults are "submerged into a sea of dispersed information", "[b]rowsing and engaging in superficial thinking activities". Kialo could counteract this issue and help people develop good sane reasoning. Academia, R&D and policy Three scholars from three prestigious U.S. universities outlined possible benefits in this domain, including applications beyond higher education such as for academic communication. They suggest the debate platform could be used for structuring the communication of open peer-review by helping those giving feedback to "hone in on[sic] core arguments and pieces of evidence in an even more direct way" than annotated commenting. It could be used to evaluate extracted argument structures and sequences from raw texts, as in a Semantic Web for arguments. Such "argument mining", to which Kialo is the lar